Hola folks I am now going to prove that God is not both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. I am not a perfect being so my arguments are not 100% likely to be true, but given that we know about the concept of God, we want to test it the best we can using our limited abilities. So here is my test and why an omnibenevolent omnipotent God does not exist.

Definitions:

Omnipotence is omni (all) potence (power). So being omnipotent means being all powerful. Power is the ability to do something. So being all powerful means you have the ability to do anything.

If you take the word of the bible seriously, the bible says that nothing is too hard for God, he can do all things, he can do everything, with God all things are possible, nothing is impossible for God, God is omnipotent, he is almighty. Being almightly means that your might or power extends to all things. The bible defines God's powers multiple times.

The concept of omnibenevolence stems from two basic ideas of God: that God is perfect and that God is morally good. Therefore, God must possess perfect goodness. Being perfectly good must entail being good in all ways at all times and towards all other beings.

The fact that we say that God is omnibenevolent assumes that there is good and there is evil. The bible goes to a lot of length to define what is good and what is evil. I could argue that there is no such thing as good and this is only a subjective emotional construct, and second that if there is a good, there is no reason to think what is in the bible defines what good is. I will not go down that path though.

So here my the argument at last.

Assume God is omnipotent and assume that good and evil exists and that such things reflects what we read in the bible.God is omnibenevolent according the the bible's and the dictionary's definition.Assume both moral and natural evil exists.A good God would not likely create an evil world.Therefore there is a contradiction between the traits of such a God and the world we see today.Therefore an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God defined in both the bible and the dictionary does not exist.

Possible refutation:Removing natural evil will prevent people from facing challenges and growing. Removing moral evil will also remove free will.Therefore an omnibenevolent God has a good reason to keep these things around.

Refutation of Refutation:God is omnipotent so he can remove natural evil while allowing his creatures to grow in goodness.God is omnipotent so he can remove moral evil without violating free will.

So again, there is evil,an omnipotent could make a perfect world with free will and personal growth. Such a world does not exist.Therefore an omnipotent omnibenevolent God, and also a God defined in a serious reading of the bible does not exist.

This sort of stuff has been done to death recently, the simple fact is Christians don't have a neat response for it.

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

At 9/2/2011 11:15:49 AM, Dan4reason wrote:God is omnipotent so he can remove moral evil without violating free will.

Elaborate. I don't think God can do remove A and still have A^B.

What do you mean you don't think God can something? He is omnipotent. He can do anything. For God, where there is a will, there is a way.

So your argument reduces to an omnipotence paradox, where you point out God can't do the logically impossible, and then assert nonexistence?

Nope, God can do the logically impossible. So even if making a universe that was perfect with free will was logically impossible, he can still do it.

There are two ways to try to refute this. Since God can bend logic, he now makes my argument wrong even though it is right, the Christian is saved!!! Or maybe God bent logic so that even if it is logical that an omni benevolent omnipotent being would make a perfect universe, he bent logic so this is no longer true. But wait... why would a good God do something like that? Is he trying to get out of making a perfect universe? But wait, my argument can still be refuted.

God is omnipotent right which means he can change what is right and what is wrong. So all God has to do is change morality so making evil universes even when he doesn't have to, is not morally wrong. Then you might say, wait! Why would an omni benevolent God change morality so he can do immoral stuff? Doesn't that make him a little evil? Well, all God has to is make it no longer wrong to change morality so he can create a universe with evil in it. There you go! I have been disproved.

At 9/2/2011 11:15:49 AM, Dan4reason wrote:Hola folks I am now going to prove that God is not both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. I am not a perfect being so my arguments are not 100% likely to be true, but given that we know about the concept of God, we want to test it the best we can using our limited abilities. So here is my test and why an omnibenevolent omnipotent God does not exist.

Definitions:

Omnipotence is omni (all) potence (power). So being omnipotent means being all powerful. Power is the ability to do something. So being all powerful means you have the ability to do anything.

If you take the word of the bible seriously, the bible says that nothing is too hard for God, he can do all things, he can do everything, with God all things are possible, nothing is impossible for God, God is omnipotent, he is almighty. Being almightly means that your might or power extends to all things. The bible defines God's powers multiple times.

The concept of omnibenevolence stems from two basic ideas of God: that God is perfect and that God is morally good. Therefore, God must possess perfect goodness. Being perfectly good must entail being good in all ways at all times and towards all other beings.

The fact that we say that God is omnibenevolent assumes that there is good and there is evil. The bible goes to a lot of length to define what is good and what is evil. I could argue that there is no such thing as good and this is only a subjective emotional construct, and second that if there is a good, there is no reason to think what is in the bible defines what good is. I will not go down that path though.

So here my the argument at last.

Assume God is omnipotent and assume that good and evil exists and that such things reflects what we read in the bible.God is omnibenevolent according the the bible's and the dictionary's definition.Assume both moral and natural evil exists.A good God would not likely create an evil world.Therefore there is a contradiction between the traits of such a God and the world we see today.Therefore an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God defined in both the bible and the dictionary does not exist.

Possible refutation:Removing natural evil will prevent people from facing challenges and growing. Removing moral evil will also remove free will.Therefore an omnibenevolent God has a good reason to keep these things around.

Refutation of Refutation:God is omnipotent so he can remove natural evil while allowing his creatures to grow in goodness.God is omnipotent so he can remove moral evil without violating free will.

So again, there is evil,an omnipotent could make a perfect world with free will and personal growth. Such a world does not exist.Therefore an omnipotent omnibenevolent God, and also a God defined in a serious reading of the bible does not exist.

Your logic is flawed. You can't make the judgement that this world is not the most benevolent world possible. Evil, good and bad are all relative terms. There are greater and lesser evils. You aren't capable of making the judgement of whether this world is the most benevolent world possible.

Ironically, the reason you can't make that judgement is because you are not omniscient - meaning conscious or aware of everything - absolutely everything, past, present and future as well as all things both living and inert and the relationships between them all.

You also neglect the issue of free will. Evil is a corruption of free will. It is someone making the wrong choice. If free will is reality, then evil must exist.

So if you had to make the choice of which world you would create and then live in..... In the first world you have free will, but because free will exists someone is sure to choose the wrong thing - so evil will exist. Or the other world there is no evil or wrong choices being made, but now you are just a robot with no capacity to do anything of your own choosing. Would you choose to be a robot?

Don't you realise how valuable freedom is? What an amazing thing it is to be conscious, to be alive, to be sentient. Free will is an inseparable quality of consciousness. If something is conscious it has free will.

You are just stateing the omni paradox's with you personally defining what omni means.Typically you would have to take the Christian Theologians definition of the words Omni, if you were legitimate to the personal God you are trying to claim does not exist.

Once you do that you will see that you are not in a good position to define the omni max being.

You are not omniscient yourself so you could not possibly pull off an evaluation.

As for the definition you laid out, the Bible nor Christians have defined God to be omni as you have done.

Omnipotence never gives God the desire to violate our freewill.Omnibenevolence never stops God from punishing the wicked through retribute justice carried out by him alone. He is "all benevolent" to those who are good and themselves benevolent. It defines his actions not a restrictive process imposed upon him.

You will need to find a paradoxcial problem with the Christian God in fact not as you define Him for your argument to work properly

At 9/2/2011 11:15:49 AM, Dan4reason wrote:Hola folks I am now going to prove that God is not both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. I am not a perfect being so my arguments are not

100% likely to be true, but given that we know about the concept of God, we want to test it the best we can using our limited abilities. So here is my test and why an omnibenevolent omnipotent God does not exist.

Definitions:

Omnipotence is omni (all) potence (power). So being omnipotent means being all powerful. Power is the ability to do something. So being all powerful means you have the ability to do anything.

If you take the word of the bible seriously, the bible says that nothing is too hard for God, he can do all things, he can do everything, with God all things are possible, nothing is impossible for God, God is omnipotent, he is almighty. Being almightly means that your might or power extends to all things. The bible defines God's powers multiple times.

The concept of omnibenevolence stems from two basic ideas of God: that God is perfect and that God is morally good. Therefore, God must possess perfect goodness. Being perfectly good must entail being good in all ways at all times and towards all other beings.

The fact that we say that God is omnibenevolent assumes that there is good and there is evil. The bible goes to a lot of length to define what is good and what is evil. I could argue that there is no such thing as good and this is only a subjective emotional construct, and second that if there is a good, there is no reason to think what is in the bible defines what good is. I will not go down that path though.

So here my the argument at last.

Assume God is omnipotent and assume that good and evil exists and that such things reflects what we read in the bible.God is omnibenevolent according the the bible's and the dictionary's definition.Assume both moral and natural evil exists.A good God would not likely create an evil world.Therefore there is a contradiction between the traits of such a God and the world we see today.Therefore an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God defined in both the bible and the dictionary does not exist.

Possible refutation:Removing natural evil will prevent people from facing challenges and growing. Removing moral evil will also remove free will.Therefore an omnibenevolent God has a good reason to keep these things around.

Refutation of Refutation:God is omnipotent so he can remove natural evil while allowing his creatures to grow in goodness.God is omnipotent so he can remove moral evil without violating free will.

So again, there is evil,an omnipotent could make a perfect world with free will and personal growth. Such a world does not exist.Therefore an omnipotent omnibenevolent God, and also a God defined in a serious reading of the bible does not exist.

Your logic is flawed. You can't make the judgement that this world is not the most benevolent world possible. Evil, good and bad are all relative terms. There are greater and lesser evils. You aren't capable of making the judgement of whether this world is the most benevolent world possible.

Of course, everything contains a shade of good and a shade of evil (assuming these are objective things). So lets say that this world is gray and a little on the white side. So why didn't God make the world white (completely good)?

Ironically, the reason you can't make that judgement is because you are not omniscient - meaning conscious or aware of everything - absolutely everything, past, present and future as well as all things both living and inert and the relationships between them all.

If you cannot make judgements about things in which you are not perfectly knowledgeable, then you cannot make choices about anything. In reality, if you are not completely knowledgeable about an issues, you can still make judgements about it, but there is a probability that you are wrong.

The fact of the matter is that we are trying to see if an omnipotent omnibenevolent God is consistent with the reality we see. We try to make the best determination we can. I addressed this in the OP.

You also neglect the issue of free will. Evil is a corruption of free will. It is someone making the wrong choice. If free will is reality, then evil must exist.

And this is a problem for an omnipotent being? I see that you are arguing that free will is a good. If we remove evil, we remove free will (a good). God is not willing to so that, so he has to put up with evil for the time being. But wait, why can't God remove evil without removing free will? He is omnipotent right?

So if you had to make the choice of which world you would create and then live in..... In the first world you have free will, but because free will exists someone is sure to choose the wrong thing - so evil will exist. Or the other world there is no evil or wrong choices being made, but now you are just a robot with no capacity to do anything of your own choosing. Would you choose to be a robot?

Really, an omnipotent God is limited to two choices?

Don't you realise how valuable freedom is? What an amazing thing it is to be conscious, to be alive, to be sentient. Free will is an inseparable quality of consciousness. If something is conscious it has free will.

I will use one of your refuted arguments on you. Who are to say what God would or would not do? Who says he values freedom? You are far from being omniscient or omnibenevolent. You cannot make that call.

At 9/4/2011 9:48:03 AM, Gileandos wrote:Hotdog has pegged it. So has wjelements:

You are just stateing the omni paradox's with you personally defining what omni means.

No I am not. I am claiming that God can do the logically impossible. God can make a stone he cannot lift.

Typically you would have to take the Christian Theologians definition of the words Omni, if you were legitimate to the personal God you are trying to claim does not exist.

I don't care how theologians have redefined the word omnipotence, what I care about is the general definition of the word and the biblical definition of omnipotence. Of course I am ready to agree that the bible is not an authority. The dictionary also agrees with me. Heck the world even agrees with me. Omni (all) potent (powerful) Al (all) mightly (powerful). He can do anything. If there are exceptions, then he is no longer omnipotent. So God is only omnibenevolent, and I still win the debate.

Once you do that you will see that you are not in a good position to define the omni max being.

You are not omniscient yourself so you could not possibly pull off an evaluation.

We are not perfect at detecting objective truths, so why then do we make judgements about it? This is because we are still somewhat competent, so we can make probabilistic judgements.

Here I am, an imperfect being trying to see if this universe is likely to have been made by a perfect being. My judgement may not be perfect, but I will make the best judgement I can.

As for the definition you laid out, the Bible nor Christians have defined God to be omni as you have done.

Actually my definition was an exact quote of the biblical definition.

Omnipotence never gives God the desire to violate our freewill.

Well we are not all born with perfect free will, but lets assume for the moment we are. A good God would probably destroy evil without violating free will.

But wait, who are we to say a perfect God would care about free will, according to your own reasoning?

Omnibenevolence never stops God from punishing the wicked through retribute justice carried out by him alone. He is "all benevolent" to those who are good and themselves benevolent. It defines his actions not a restrictive process imposed upon him.

I never claimed that he did not punish evil people. Although on the side, there is no reason to suspect that he would punish people for their private issues, or religious opinions. There is no reason he would punish people only just because they did something wrong. That is the revenge model. He would probably punish evil people to actually do some good.

Your logic is flawed. You can't make the judgement that this world is not the most benevolent world possible. Evil, good and bad are all relative terms. There are greater and lesser evils. You aren't capable of making the judgement of whether this world is the most benevolent world possible.

Of course, everything contains a shade of good and a shade of evil (assuming these are objective things). So lets say that this world is gray and a little on the white side. So why didn't God make the world white (completely good)?

He did make a completely white world - its called heaven. Have you considered the possibility that it is you who have chosen to live here rather than in the white heaven? If that is the case, then the fault for this world lies with you and all the others who have chosen it, not God. If you analyse most of the evil in the world - it is man made, not God made. People come and tell you about heaven, but you choose to ignore that.

Ironically, the reason you can't make that judgement is because you are not omniscient - meaning conscious or aware of everything - absolutely everything, past, present and future as well as all things both living and inert and the relationships between them all.

If you cannot make judgements about things in which you are not perfectly knowledgeable, then you cannot make choices about anything. In reality, if you are not completely knowledgeable about an issues, you can still make judgements about it, but there is a probability that you are wrong.

But your best guess will never be good enough in this case. There is no problem deciding less important things in that way - but to decide non-existence of God based on an imperfect method of acquiring knowledge is foolish.

The fact of the matter is that we are trying to see if an omnipotent omnibenevolent God is consistent with the reality we see. We try to make the best determination we can. I addressed this in the OP.

I understand what you are trying to do, but you refuse to consider the possibility I suggested that would mean this world IS consistent with an omni-benevolent god. This world is the most benevolent one possible given the desires of all the inhabitants of this world and the choices they have made and are continuing to make.

You also neglect the issue of free will. Evil is a corruption of free will. It is someone making the wrong choice. If free will is reality, then evil must exist.

And this is a problem for an omnipotent being? I see that you are arguing that free will is a good. If we remove evil, we remove free will (a good). God is not willing to so that, so he has to put up with evil for the time being. But wait, why can't God remove evil without removing free will? He is omnipotent right?

Because free will is not something you have - its part of who you are. It can't be taken away from you without you ceasing to exist. And although God is omnipotent you also fail to consider the possibility that he chooses not to take away your free will. He allows you, and everyone else here to make their own decisions. So we are making bad decisions and the world is a mess because of it.

So if you had to make the choice of which world you would create and then live in..... In the first world you have free will, but because free will exists someone is sure to choose the wrong thing - so evil will exist. Or the other world there is no evil or wrong choices being made, but now you are just a robot with no capacity to do anything of your own choosing. Would you choose to be a robot?

Really, an omnipotent God is limited to two choices?

No, obviously not - I was using an example to communicate a point that you seem to not understand or choose to ignore.

Don't you realise how valuable freedom is? What an amazing thing it is to be conscious, to be alive, to be sentient. Free will is an inseparable quality of consciousness. If something is conscious it has free will.

I will use one of your refuted arguments on you. Who are to say what God would or would not do? Who says he values freedom? You are far from being omniscient or omnibenevolent. You cannot make that call.

I am no one - just like you. Neither of us have perfect knowledge. I say god values freedom because freedom exists. If something exists, God must have sanctioned it. The knowledge of who God is and why this world is like it is is available from those who have studied this in the past - the wisdom traditions or religions.

At 9/4/2011 9:48:03 AM, Gileandos wrote:Hotdog has pegged it. So has wjelements:

You are just stateing the omni paradox's with you personally defining what omni means.

No I am not. I am claiming that God can do the logically impossible. God can make a stone he cannot lift.

Proved my point. You are just personally defining the omni portion. To you personally God can do logically impossible things, that is your personal bent.

Typically you would have to take the Christian Theologians definition of the words Omni, if you were legitimate to the personal God you are trying to claim does not exist.

I don't care how theologians have redefined the word omnipotence, what I care about is the general definition of the word and the biblical definition of omnipotence. Of course I am ready to agree that the bible is not an authority. The dictionary also agrees with me. Heck the world even agrees with me. Omni (all) potent (powerful) Al (all) mightly (powerful). He can do anything. If there are exceptions, then he is no longer omnipotent. So God is only omnibenevolent, and I still win the debate.

Theologians are the only ones with scholastic "right" to create those definitions. Obviously your personal definitions are only the philosophical rigid definitions rather than the theological "maximums" generated by Theologians.

God is defined as the Maximum being not ever to be put into a box with rigid definitions as you have done. We generally speaking do not know his reasoning unless revealed to us. We can only by implication understand what has been revealed.

Once you do that you will see that you are not in a good position to define the omni max being.

You are not omniscient yourself so you could not possibly pull off an evaluation.

We are not perfect at detecting objective truths, so why then do we make judgements about it? This is because we are still somewhat competent, so we can make probabilistic judgements.

Here I am, an imperfect being trying to see if this universe is likely to have been made by a perfect being. My judgement may not be perfect, but I will make the best judgement I can.

I did not evaluate the claims of the omnimax being. You did. I merely evalutated your claims.

As for the definition you laid out, the Bible nor Christians have defined God to be omni as you have done.

Actually my definition was an exact quote of the biblical definition.

No it wasn't. As a Christian theolgian I assure you, you took those passages out contextual understanding. None of those passages laid out a definition you argued for.

Omnipotence never gives God the desire to violate our freewill.

Well we are not all born with perfect free will, but lets assume for the moment we are. A good God would probably destroy evil without violating free will.

But wait, who are we to say a perfect God would care about free will, according to your own reasoning?

unless a greater good is had by not destroying evil outright and doing it later.

At 9/4/2011 6:28:31 PM, hotdog wrote:He did make a completely white world - its called heaven. Have you considered the possibility that it is you who have chosen to live here rather than in the white heaven? If that is the case, then the fault for this world lies with you and all the others who have chosen it, not God. If you analyse most of the evil in the world - it is man made, not God made. People come and tell you about heaven, but you choose to ignore that.

The fact God made heaven is irrelevant to the fact that he made this world imperfect. Now you say that most evil in the world is human made. I noticed you said most. Who made the rest?

But I do agree that we do screw things up a lot. Apparently whoever made us simply could not avoid the imperfections we would contain. I guess there are some things this creator just could not do.

But your best guess will never be good enough in this case. There is no problem deciding less important things in that way - but to decide non-existence of God based on an imperfect method of acquiring knowledge is foolish.

Just because something is not 100% proven with a 0% chance of error does not mean it is a guess. In my opinion, I have given some strong arguments and they may not be perfect but they can lead us to make some high probability judgements. If you don't think my arguments are strong, then I suggest you continue trying to refute them.

I understand what you are trying to do, but you refuse to consider the possibility I suggested that would mean this world IS consistent with an omni-benevolent god. This world is the most benevolent one possible given the desires of all the inhabitants of this world and the choices they have made and are continuing to make.

What do you mean this imperfect world is the best world possible for a perfect being to create? For a non-omnipotent creator you have a case. However, as the bible says, with God anything is possible. So for God a truly perfect world far better than this one is possible. You keep trying to impose retrains on an omnipotent being. However, this is just a huge contradiction. An omnipotent being by definition has no restraints.

Because free will is not something you have - its part of who you are. It can't be taken away from you without you ceasing to exist. And although God is omnipotent you also fail to consider the possibility that he chooses not to take away your free will. He allows you, and everyone else here to make their own decisions. So we are making bad decisions and the world is a mess because of it.

Ummm, apparently you don't know God very well. He can remove free will while allowing you to exist. I don't see why he would, but he could do it.

I never ever ever claimed that God should take away our free will. I said that God could remove evil without removing free will.

No, obviously not - I was using an example to communicate a point that you seem to not understand or choose to ignore.

Maybe there is a third choice. Maybe there is an option where everyone has perfect free will in a universe without evil ever existing.

I am no one - just like you. Neither of us have perfect knowledge. I say god values freedom because freedom exists. If something exists, God must have sanctioned it. The knowledge of who God is and why this world is like it is is available from those who have studied this in the past - the wisdom traditions or religions.

I will use your own refuted reasoning against you. To make judgements on what God values based on an imperfect method of acquiring knowledge is foolish. Why are you the expert on how God loving freedom and free will? You a mere mortal with such limited morality, and knowledge are trying to make all kinds of claims on the sort of things a perfect infinite being values.

The obvious refutation of this attack is that you do not have the luxury of being a perfect being. So you will try to make the best determination you can about whether an omnipotent being omniscient being fits the data we have. Remaining in constant confusion and indecision about such topics is worse than taking the chance of being wrong about a few things. Of course I do have to wonder why anyone thinks absolute morality exists in the first place, but anyway....

I do think that you are good at refuting traditional atheist arguments for why God is inconsistent with this universe, but you are making points I refuted in the OP.

@ Dan,Also for clarity, God did create the world but Satan is the god of this earth. Any complaints you have are with Satan and not The Living God.-----hot dog is right to distinguish between Heaven and earth distinctly. It shows that Heaven is possible yet there is another reason that earth contains evil...

Proved my point. You are just personally defining the omni portion. To you personally God can do logically impossible things, that is your personal bent.

I used the biblical and dictionary definitions.

Theologians are the only ones with scholastic "right" to create those definitions. Obviously your personal definitions are only the philosophical rigid definitions rather than the theological "maximums" generated by Theologians.

I am using the normal definition of omnipotence, and the biblical definition of omnipotence. A God who cannot do all things but can do all things that are logically possible is not covered by my argument.

I see no need to redefine what omnipotence means. Defining omnipotence as the ability to do all things is perfect for the word used. If you want to define God as a being who can only do things that are logically possible, then he obviously cannot do all things any more. Instead of changing the english language in order to defend God, why not make up a new word for your new definition of God that makes sense? Why not define God as a logopotent being? A being who can do all possible logically consistent actions.

God is defined as the Maximum being not ever to be put into a box with rigid definitions as you have done. We generally speaking do not know his reasoning unless revealed to us. We can only by implication understand what has been revealed.

I think we should let the bible define God, not a bunch of philosophers.

I did not evaluate the claims of the omnimax being. You did. I merely evalutated your claims.

You are claiming God cannot do logically impossible things. You are also making statments about how God likes free will.

No it wasn't. As a Christian theolgian I assure you, you took those passages out contextual understanding. None of those passages laid out a definition you argued for.

Matthew 19:26But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Genesis 17:1And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Job 42:2I know that thou canst do everything, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

Jeremiah 32:17,27Ah Lord God! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee:Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

Luke 1:37For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Revelation 19:6And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

Here is what I said about God's omnipotence as defined in the bible.

"the bible says that nothing is too hard for God, he can do all things, he can do everything, with God all things are possible, nothing is impossible for God, God is omnipotent, he is almighty. Being almightly means that your might or power extends to all things. The bible defines God's powers multiple times."

I did not take the bible out of context, I used its exact definitions as my own.

unless a greater good is had by not destroying evil outright and doing it later.

Maybe God can destroy evil while obtaining this greater good all at the same time.

At 9/4/2011 6:28:31 PM, hotdog wrote:He did make a completely white world - its called heaven. Have you considered the possibility that it is you who have chosen to live here rather than in the white heaven? If that is the case, then the fault for this world lies with you and all the others who have chosen it, not God. If you analyse most of the evil in the world - it is man made, not God made. People come and tell you about heaven, but you choose to ignore that.

The fact God made heaven is irrelevant to the fact that he made this world imperfect. Now you say that most evil in the world is human made. I noticed you said most. Who made the rest?

The rest is a creation of the material nature. The material nature is one of god's energies or potencies. It's an inferior energy due to its lack of consciousness. It's in essence the energy of time or the temporal. As such everything which is created from this material energy is temporary - or under the influence of time.

Because it's temporary it's always changing. This is the nature of the material world, there's no way to change this. There are 3 forms of suffering or evil in this world - suffering which comes from material nature or disasters, suffering which comes from our own actions and suffering that is caused by other living beings.Of these 3 types of suffering the only one for which you can possibly blame god is the first one - as it's his material energy. But its not his choice that this world exists - its ours. We choose not to live in heaven where god is and where there is no imperfection, suffering or death. So he has to make a place for us to exist. This is the only place left - not-heaven if you like. The anti-heaven.

But I do agree that we do screw things up a lot. Apparently whoever made us simply could not avoid the imperfections we would contain. I guess there are some things this creator just could not do.

Actually omnipotent means he can do absolutely anything. Although it's true we're imperfect, that doesn't make us worthless or bad. God likes us. We're like his children. You're children are imperfect because they can't do much and don't know as much as you so consequently they make mistakes - but they are also delightful things and bring us enormous amounts of pleasure.

But your best guess will never be good enough in this case. There is no problem deciding less important things in that way - but to decide non-existence of God based on an imperfect method of acquiring knowledge is foolish.

Just because something is not 100% proven with a 0% chance of error does not mean it is a guess. In my opinion, I have given some strong arguments and they may not be perfect but they can lead us to make some high probability judgements. If you don't think my arguments are strong, then I suggest you continue trying to refute them.

I understand what you are trying to do, but you refuse to consider the possibility I suggested that would mean this world IS consistent with an omni-benevolent god. This world is the most benevolent one possible given the desires of all the inhabitants of this world and the choices they have made and are continuing to make.

What do you mean this imperfect world is the best world possible for a perfect being to create? For a non-omnipotent creator you have a case. However, as the bible says, with God anything is possible. So for God a truly perfect world far better than this one is possible. You keep trying to impose retrains on an omnipotent being. However, this is just a huge contradiction. An omnipotent being by definition has no restraints.

Because free will is not something you have - its part of who you are. It can't be taken away from you without you ceasing to exist. And although God is omnipotent you also fail to consider the possibility that he chooses not to take away your free will. He allows you, and everyone else here to make their own decisions. So we are making bad decisions and the world is a mess because of it.

Ummm, apparently you don't know God very well. He can remove free will while allowing you to exist. I don't see why he would, but he could do it.

No - if you removed your free will, you would be a robot. You would be material. A rock or something. You wouldn't be alive with the ability to think, feel, know. So God can't remove free will without removing the thing that defines you. In effect - you would no longer exist. Maybe he likes you and wants to keep you :)

I never ever ever claimed that God should take away our free will. I said that God could remove evil without removing free will.

No, if free will exists, evil will also exist. Someone, somewhere is going to misuse that free will and do something wrong - something evil, something bad. If you don't have the capacity to choose the wrong thing - then it isn't free will.

No, obviously not - I was using an example to communicate a point that you seem to not understand or choose to ignore.

Maybe there is a third choice. Maybe there is an option where everyone has perfect free will in a universe without evil ever existing.

Yes, that is heaven. You can go there if you choose to.

I am no one - just like you. Neither of us have perfect knowledge. I say god values freedom because freedom exists. If something exists, God must have sanctioned it. The knowledge of who God is and why this world is like it is is available from those who have studied this in the past - the wisdom traditions or religions.

I will use your own refuted reasoning against you. To make judgements on what God values based on an imperfect method of acquiring knowledge is foolish. Why are you the expert on how God loving freedom and free will? You a mere mortal with such limited morality, and knowledge are trying to make all kinds of claims on the sort of things a perfect infinite being values.

The obvious refutation of this attack is that you do not have the luxury of being a perfect being. So you will try to make the best determination you can about whether an omnipotent being omniscient being fits the data we have. Remaining in constant confusion and indecision about such topics is worse than taking the chance of being wrong about a few things. Of course I do have to wonder why anyone thinks absolute morality exists in the first place, but anyway....

I use a different method of acquiring knowledge about god than you do. You try and surmise things about him with the knowledge you have gathered from observing this universe. I read and listen to the wisdom of people who have searched for god in the past - people from all different religions etc and try and understand what they have to say about it.They are very different approaches. As an analogy - its like you are studying darkness to understand light. I'm just searching for the sun.

I do think that you are good at refuting traditional atheist arguments for why God is inconsistent with this universe, but you are making points I refuted in the OP.

At 9/2/2011 11:15:49 AM, Dan4reason wrote:Hola folks I am now going to prove that God is not both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. I am not a perfect being so my arguments are not 100% likely to be true, but given that we know about the concept of God, we want to test it the best we can using our limited abilities. So here is my test and why an omnibenevolent omnipotent God does not exist.

Definitions:

Omnipotence is omni (all) potence (power). So being omnipotent means being all powerful. Power is the ability to do something. So being all powerful means you have the ability to do anything.

If you take the word of the bible seriously, the bible says that nothing is too hard for God, he can do all things, he can do everything, with God all things are possible, nothing is impossible for God, God is omnipotent, he is almighty. Being almightly means that your might or power extends to all things. The bible defines God's powers multiple times.

The concept of omnibenevolence stems from two basic ideas of God: that God is perfect and that God is morally good. Therefore, God must possess perfect goodness. Being perfectly good must entail being good in all ways at all times and towards all other beings.

The fact that we say that God is omnibenevolent assumes that there is good and there is evil. The bible goes to a lot of length to define what is good and what is evil. I could argue that there is no such thing as good and this is only a subjective emotional construct, and second that if there is a good, there is no reason to think what is in the bible defines what good is. I will not go down that path though.

So here my the argument at last.

Assume God is omnipotent and assume that good and evil exists and that such things reflects what we read in the bible.God is omnibenevolent according the the bible's and the dictionary's definition.Assume both moral and natural evil exists.A good God would not likely create an evil world.Therefore there is a contradiction between the traits of such a God and the world we see today.Therefore an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God defined in both the bible and the dictionary does not exist.

Possible refutation:Removing natural evil will prevent people from facing challenges and growing. Removing moral evil will also remove free will.Therefore an omnibenevolent God has a good reason to keep these things around.

Refutation of Refutation:God is omnipotent so he can remove natural evil while allowing his creatures to grow in goodness.God is omnipotent so he can remove moral evil without violating free will.

So again, there is evil,an omnipotent could make a perfect world with free will and personal growth. Such a world does not exist.Therefore an omnipotent omnibenevolent God, and also a God defined in a serious reading of the bible does not exist.

All things possible that ARE possible: making red yellow or yellow red is not possible because then meaning (of the words) would dissapear and we would be left with nothingness.

God cannot be what He is not (light, love, truth, power, beauty etc) and cannot make light dark or truth into a lie.

The 'all things are possible with God' scripture is referring to human problems and a human perspective.

John 1:5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

At 9/2/2011 11:15:49 AM, Dan4reason wrote:Hola folks I am now going to prove that God is not both omnibenevolent and omnipotent. I am not a perfect being so my arguments are not 100% likely to be true, but given that we know about the concept of God, we want to test it the best we can using our limited abilities. So here is my test and why an omnibenevolent omnipotent God does not exist.

Definitions:

Omnipotence is omni (all) potence (power). So being omnipotent means being all powerful. Power is the ability to do something. So being all powerful means you have the ability to do anything.

If you take the word of the bible seriously, the bible says that nothing is too hard for God, he can do all things, he can do everything, with God all things are possible, nothing is impossible for God, God is omnipotent, he is almighty. Being almightly means that your might or power extends to all things. The bible defines God's powers multiple times.

The concept of omnibenevolence stems from two basic ideas of God: that God is perfect and that God is morally good. Therefore, God must possess perfect goodness. Being perfectly good must entail being good in all ways at all times and towards all other beings.

The fact that we say that God is omnibenevolent assumes that there is good and there is evil. The bible goes to a lot of length to define what is good and what is evil. I could argue that there is no such thing as good and this is only a subjective emotional construct, and second that if there is a good, there is no reason to think what is in the bible defines what good is. I will not go down that path though.

So here my the argument at last.

Assume God is omnipotent and assume that good and evil exists and that such things reflects what we read in the bible.God is omnibenevolent according the the bible's and the dictionary's definition.Assume both moral and natural evil exists.A good God would not likely create an evil world.Therefore there is a contradiction between the traits of such a God and the world we see today.Therefore an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God defined in both the bible and the dictionary does not exist.

Possible refutation:Removing natural evil will prevent people from facing challenges and growing. Removing moral evil will also remove free will.Therefore an omnibenevolent God has a good reason to keep these things around.

Refutation of Refutation:God is omnipotent so he can remove natural evil while allowing his creatures to grow in goodness.God is omnipotent so he can remove moral evil without violating free will.

So again, there is evil,an omnipotent could make a perfect world with free will and personal growth. Such a world does not exist.Therefore an omnipotent omnibenevolent God, and also a God defined in a serious reading of the bible does not exist.

All things possible that ARE possible: making red yellow or yellow red is not possible because then meaning (of the words) would dissapear and we would be left with nothingness.

God cannot be what He is not (light, love, truth, power, beauty etc) and cannot make light dark or truth into a lie.

The 'all things are possible with God' scripture is referring to human problems and a human perspective.

John 1:5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

It isn't that God cannot be good. If he really wanted to, he could order genocide, nearly wipe out the human race, and make regulations

It isn't that God is unable do bad things, its just that he won't. God has the ability to commit genocide, make regulations concerning slavery and rape, and order genocide easily. It is just that he won't commit these acts.

Lets say that you offered me $1,000,000 so I will lie in court. I will say I just can't do it. Its wrong. When I say can't, I don't mean I am physically unable to lie, its that I will not lie. I choose not to. It is against my morals.

You say that God said that he was omnipotent only from a human perspective. So he is really really powerful, and from the human perspective he seems omnipotent because he is just so so far ahead of us, although he does have limits. The problem with this definition is that it conflicts with the dictionary definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence means the ability to do all things, all powerful. There is nothing about being omnipotence meaning being very very powerful and seeming all powerful to mortal humans. So this excuse has not saved a God who is omnipotent and omni-benevolent from a dictionary definition. However, the biblical God can still be saved.

So if the biblical God is omnipotent from your perspective, then he is actually not omnipotent, just very very powerful. Also, if the bible wasn't being literal about God's omnipotence, then what about his omniscience, and omni-benevolence? Maybe to us God seems all good and all knowing although he is not these things at all. He is just very very good and very very smart, so much so that he at least seems omni-benevolent and omniscient.

Another problem is that the bible says that God can do all things, strait out. This has an exact meaning from the human perspective. The meaning is that for any possible action, he can do it. If God meant something totally different, he should have just said so, and not have stated it in a way that had a totally different meaning.

It says nothing about him being able to do lot of things, so much so that he seems omnipotent from a human perspective. If you do not want to take the bible at its word and insert invisible asterisks into inconvenient verses, that is your prerogative. I am not debating that perspective.

I am using the normal definition of omnipotence, and the biblical definition of omnipotence. A God who cannot do all things but can do all things that are logically possible is not covered by my argument.

I am using the normal definition of omnipotence, and the biblical definition of omnipotence. A God who cannot do all things but can do all things that are logically possible is not covered by my argument.

Logically impossible "things" aren't things.

Not to mention it's perfectly possible for God to both be ruled out by the incompatibility of omnipotence and omnibenevolence, and to exist nonetheless if he can defy logic.

I am using the normal definition of omnipotence, and the biblical definition of omnipotence. A God who cannot do all things but can do all things that are logically possible is not covered by my argument.

Logically impossible "things" aren't things.

Not to mention it's perfectly possible for God to both be ruled out by the incompatibility of omnipotence and omnibenevolence, and to exist nonetheless if he can defy logic.

I am using the normal definition of omnipotence, and the biblical definition of omnipotence. A God who cannot do all things but can do all things that are logically possible is not covered by my argument.

Would you take someone seriously if they said that something wasn't omniscient if it failed to know "nothing", or that something couldn't be omnipresent if it failed to be at "nowhere"?